Search a substantial collection of case-specific reasoning, then narrow it by petition, field, legal issue, or date.
This expanded collection favors source-backed access over perfect automated classification. Fields, labels, summaries, and relevance may contain errors; records marked ‘broader context’ need extra care. Review the cited source before relying on any record. These appeals and motions do not show approval odds or denial rates, and are not legal advice or a prediction.
exceptional ability in the sciences (three of six criteria)
Why the evidence was persuasive
Petitioner satisfied criteria (B) ten years of full-time experience, (C) certification for the occupation, and (F) recognition for achievements and significant contributions—three of six required criteria.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Petitioner satisfied criteria (B) ten years of full-time experience, (C) certification for the occupation, and (F) recognition for achievements and significant contributions—three of six required criteria.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-19_02_B5203; source_row=13705 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · National importanceEstablishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Other
Issue evaluated
NIW · National importance
substantial intrinsic merit
Why the evidence was persuasive
The AAO noted the director did not contest intrinsic merit and therefore did not need to discuss it in detail, also noting counsel's argument on this point was a mischaracterization of the director's actual findings.
Why this is useful
Compare how the decision separates a broadly important field from the prospective impact of the applicant’s specific work.
View full reasoning +
The AAO noted the director did not contest intrinsic merit and therefore did not need to discuss it in detail, also noting counsel's argument on this point was a mischaracterization of the director's actual findings.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-18_03_B5203; source_row=13700 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
NIWNIW · Waiver on balanceNot establishedAutomated extraction · broader context
Case facts
Civil / Structural Engineering
Issue evaluated
NIW · Waiver on balance
serves national interest substantially greater than available U.S. worker
Why AAO was not persuaded
AAO found that the petitioner's graduate research had a minimal citation record and was not shown to have prospective benefit, his current work at Caltrans was not shown to stand out from peers, the witness letters praised his competence but did not show he served the national interest substantially more than a U.S. worker, and the $13 million savings claim was unsubstantiated by comparative data.
Why this is useful
See which endeavor-specific facts mattered to the waiver analysis beyond a preference to self-petition.
View full reasoning +
AAO found that the petitioner's graduate research had a minimal citation record and was not shown to have prospective benefit, his current work at Caltrans was not shown to stand out from peers, the witness letters praised his competence but did not show he served the national interest substantially more than a U.S. worker, and the $13 million savings claim was unsubstantiated by comparative data.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-18_01_B5203; source_row=13699 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The totality of the evidence—a single student travel award, Sigma Xi membership without evidence of selectivity, citations in articles only as footnotes, limited peer review access obtained by petitioner's own request, moderate citations for only two articles, and expert letters describing only potential future impact—did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small pe…
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
The totality of the evidence—a single student travel award, Sigma Xi membership without evidence of selectivity, citations in articles only as footnotes, limited peer review access obtained by petitioner's own request, moderate citations for only two articles, and expert letters describing only potential future impact—did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the petitioner was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-17_02_B2203; source_row=13692 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
EB-1AEB-1A · Leading / critical roleNot established
Case facts
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering
Issue evaluated
EB-1A · Leading / critical role
leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Why AAO was not persuaded
Expert letters only described the petitioner playing a leading role 'in his project' rather than for an organization as a whole, and failed to demonstrate the petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of any organization or establishment.
Why this is useful
Use the reasoning to identify the specific factual or documentary gap AAO considered material.
View full reasoning +
Expert letters only described the petitioner playing a leading role 'in his project' rather than for an organization as a whole, and failed to demonstrate the petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of any organization or establishment.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-17_02_B2203; source_row=13690 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c
The emails from scientific journals showed only that the petitioner requested to be a referee and was added to journal databases, but contained no evidence that he actually participated as a judge or was independently invited to review manuscripts.
Why this is useful
See how invitations, completed assignments, and the nature of judging were documented and weighed.
View full reasoning +
The emails from scientific journals showed only that the petitioner requested to be a referee and was added to journal databases, but contained no evidence that he actually participated as a judge or was independently invited to review manuscripts.
Exact record locator: findings_long.parquet filename_stem=2012-01-17_02_B2203; source_row=13687 Revision: 081d2cac29dcadfec88fdd675d7a0c4294d72b3c